A Professional Opinion Given Without Malice Cannot Constitute Criminal Conspiracy: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Against Empanelled Valuer

Valuation Report May Be Negligent, But Not Forged — Gujarat High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a bank-approved valuer accused in a massive ₹7.77 crore housing loan fraud. The petitioner, an architect and government-approved valuer, was named in the FIR and chargesheet for allegedly aiding the disbursal of loans against non-existent properties through a false valuation report.

However, Justice J.C. Doshi found that the petitioner’s actions, even if careless or negligent, did not attract criminal liability, holding:

“Preparation of a valuation report without visiting the site, at most, may be treated as negligence or carelessness but cannot be treated as forgery or preparation of a forged document.”

The FIR, registered with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station, accused multiple parties—including builders, bank officials, advocates, and valuers—of working in tandem to fabricate property documents, submit false title reports, and fraudulently obtain loans from Union Bank of India for properties that did not exist.

The petitioner, Bankim Tarun Dave, was alleged to have filed a valuation report for such properties based on photographs taken by his office staff, allegedly misled by the Bank Manager, who played a central role in the scam.

The prosecution alleged: “Accused Bankimbhai, in spite of being the panel valuer, prepared a false report for properties that were not constructed and issued the report based on images from other plots.”

No Criminal Conspiracy, No Forgery
The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B IPC, and emphasized: “The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies not in doing the act but in the agreement to do an illegal act. Mere negligence, without meeting of minds, does not constitute conspiracy.”

Justice Doshi found no material to indicate that the petitioner had any agreement with the accused parties or knowingly participated in defrauding the bank: “At most, the valuation report was an opinion formed by the petitioner. It may be wrong or false, but it cannot be treated as a forged document created in complicity with other accused.”

On the allegations of forgery under Sections 465, 467, 468 IPC, the Court held: “There is no evidence that the petitioner made a false document with intent to defraud. A valuation report, even if based on incorrect site visit, is not a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC.”

Valuation Report: Expert Opinion, Not Criminal Instrument

Referring to the disclaimer in the valuation report, the Court noted: “The petitioner had clearly disclaimed liability towards title and ownership, stated that valuation was subject to variable opinion, and that it was based on site visit arranged by others.”

Justice Doshi stressed that valuers are not expected to verify ownership, legality, or authenticity of title documents, adding: “He is not equipped to identify whether the document is fabricated or genuine. His job is to assess the market value based on inputs provided.”

On Quashing of FIR Under Section 482 CrPC
Applying the law laid down in Bhajan Lal, K. Narayana Rao, and Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court concluded that the prosecution lacked the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy, cheating, or forgery. It reiterated:

“Without any evidence of meeting of minds or agreement to commit an illegal act, the petitioner cannot be put through the rigmarole of a criminal trial.”

The Court further noted that: “The valuation was done upon being misled by the bank manager who showed the wrong site. The petitioner’s conduct may at best invite professional scrutiny—not prosecution.”

The Gujarat High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner, holding that his actions did not meet the threshold for any of the alleged offences, and that continuing the trial would amount to abuse of process of law.

Justice J.C. Doshi concluded: “Putting the petitioner on rigmarole of trial is abuse of process of law… preparation of valuation report cannot amount to forgery or criminal conspiracy in absence of any active role in defrauding the bank.”

Date of Decision: April 21, 2025